“You’re not a faithful Christian if you aren’t speaking up!” If you are even mildly active on social media and/or taking part in conversations about goings on in our world you’ve like heard/read some version of that. I see it all over.
ICE abducted person A under such and such circumstances. You don’t care about justice if you aren’t speaking up!
A church in Minnesota was disrupted by protesters. You are a coward if you won’t stand up for the church in moments like this!
Minority person A was shot by law enforcement during an arrest. If you don’t speak up you’re just another MAGA!
An innocent bus rider was stabbed by an illegal alien. Now is the time to stand up for true Americans if you care!
What if I refuse these urgings or mandates to certain words and actions? Does that make me a bad Christian? Do we have the right or responsibility to coerce reactionary words and actions from each other to prove our Christianity?
I’ll tip my hand to my answers to those questions by noting that I am weary of varying factions demanding that Christians perform on cue as a hasty response to the travesty of the day.
Who gets to determine which injustices are worthy of extra attention and necessary to speak publicly about? Do we have any realization just how many injustices are occurring at any given time? Is there moral superiority in offering a public hue and cry that simply mirrors the news cycle and the algorithm-driven outrage of the day? For example: A number of years ago a man died in Minneapolis while being arrested. You may have heard of it – a lot. Outcry ensued. The CRC made statements. His life mattered. We were told to say his name. But as soon as the news cycle moved on there was a mysterious silence about lives mattering. Specifically, I mean the spate of murders of young children in Minneapolis that happened soon after. Their lives mattered. But they didn’t merit a statement from the CRC. We were not asked to say their names. We were not asked or commanded to be outraged about the injustice. It's almost as if their lives/deaths were not useful for forwarding a preferred narrative and so they were left to the dustbin of history. Must we be slaves to the news cycle in order to prove our Christianity?
Should we be more outraged about law enforcement excesses than we are about violent crimes and habitual fraud? Or perhaps the other way around? Do you get to tell me I need to make a choice between the two?
I find it interesting that the people closest to Christ, those who learned at his feet for years and were directly commissioned by him did not display this sort of behavior. Despite living in exceedingly wicked times the witness to their words and activities does not record that they spent their time responding to the outrage of the day nor demanding the same of others. One apostle even had the audacity to say that he resolved to know nothing amongst the church but Christ and him crucified.
If public moral posturing and protesting was a chief duty of the church, we will find that the early church under the teaching of the apostles was a woefully inadequate church.
I hope no one hears me wrong: I am not saying that injustice does not matter. I am not saying that we are to be indifferent to what goes on in our world. I am not saying that our belief in Christ and him crucified need not be accompanied by works of righteousness (prepared in advance for us) and justice in order to evidence a true and living faith (a la James’ exhortation and Jesus’ rejection of those who refused justice and mercy to the least of these).
Instead, I think we can and should reject the pattern of demanding reactionary and vocal outrage be demonstrated by others in a manner commensurate with our own preferences or choices. Sometimes I remain silent. You do too. We will do well to stop acting as if we get to offer the activist litmus tests that our fellow Christians must pass.
Comments
I'm sorry Eric, but this goes beyond being the outrage of the day. This has been brutish, fear inducing and leading to trauma for so many who did follow all the rules from the start. And yes we should first of all care about law enforcement excesses. If they don't follow the law where does that leave us. And when we talk about our brothers and sisters in Christ how many have too much fear to even attend their services, and that includes CRC's. I'd like to understand how came to believe as you do on this matter.
Hi Karl,
Thanks for joining in conversation with me. I appreciate your perspective.
I did try to explain in the article how I came to believe as I do on this matter. I'm a little unsure what part of what I've written you disagree with. If we were to take my last paragraph as a bit of a summary, can you identify something in that paragraph that you disagree with and help me understand why you disagree (if you do)? Thanks.
Eric
Hello Eric, sometimes in life we are called to be quiet and patient but other times we a called to speak. Think the old testament prophets calling for justice especially regarding the poor and widows. Think back to the Christian acceptance of slavery, the German Christian church before and during WWII. However we do it our denomination should be speaking to the present situation in the US. And as far as a litmus test the church wasn't afraid to give us one for the HSR. I don't know how you would see this differently.
Hi again, Karl. I will assume since I asked you to consider what in my closing paragraph you might disagree with and you offered no disagreement, that you must be in agreement. You will note that nowhere in my OP did I say that the church should be silent.
You mischaracterize the HSR when you say it is a litmus test. It is a theological position or understanding, and nothing more. The church has doctrine - that is inescapable. And the leaders of that church must agree to that doctrine if they purport to lead - that is neither novel (new) nor inconsistent for the CRC.
"I find it interesting that the people closest to Christ, those who learned at his feet for years and were directly commissioned by him did not display this sort of behavior. Despite living in exceedingly wicked times the witness to their words and activities does not record that they spent their time responding to the outrage of the day nor demanding the same of others." The people closest to Christ were living in an occupied country ruled by an emperor. We live in a Democracy where the people rule. Isn't that a significant difference? Also, Jesus came to proclaim God's Kingdom-- Good News to the poor, etc (Luke 4:18-19). Doesn't our Reformed, Kingdom theology that claims "Every Square Inch of this World Belongs to God" require us to speak out against injustice in our society? I would refer you to our Contemporary Testimony, "Our World Belongs to God," especially paragraphs 52-54.
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for joining in conversation. No, I do not think that the question of the type of government we are living under impacts our moral imperative or changes the mission and focus of the church.
If you read my second-to-the-last paragraph again you will see that I am not standing in opposition to our Contemporary Testimony, nor arguing against Christians speaking against injustice.
You will note that my thrust has to do with compelling others to speak and act when, why, and how we might prefer when it comes to questions of injustice broadly speaking. I hope that you can join me in believing that this does not build unity in the church and is not defensible or practically attainable.
Hi Eric, thanks for the article. You wrote, "I think we can and should reject the pattern of demanding reactionary and vocal outrage be demonstrated by others in a manner commensurate with our own preferences or choices. Sometimes I remain silent. You do too."
Sometimes wisdom requires patience. This is true especially when a matter is still moving through the legal process. In the United States, the presumption of innocence is a foundational principle. Not every nation operates this way; some even allow long preventive detention before charges are filed. That reality alone should make us cautious about drawing conclusions too quickly.
For pastors in particular, speaking publicly about unfolding news events can lead us in unhelpful, maybe even inappropriate, directions.
First, we rarely have all the facts. What we know usually comes filtered through media reports, social media, or commentary, all of which may be incomplete, biased, or inaccurate.
Second, speaking prematurely can subtly communicate that a legal process does not need to run its course before conclusions are drawn. Declaring guilt or injustice before a verdict risks undermining the very justice we may think we are defending. Waiting matters. Due process matters.
Third, reacting to every perceived injustice in the news can reveal shallow reflection rather than careful discernment. Complex situations deserve thoughtful consideration, not quick judgments.
We all hold political and social opinions, and we all have a vote on these issues at the ballot box.
I wonder if pastors and church leaders ought to be asking a deeper question: What is our calling in this moment? Will expressing my opinion help shepherd Christ’s flock, or create unnecessary division?
The unity of the church is fragile. Experience shows that even faithful pastors differ widely in how they interpret current events and geopolitical issues. If that is true among shepherds, how much more within congregations?
Here are some questions, your entry, Eric, caused me to ponder: Why risk dividing the body of Christ over matters that are not central to salvation, yet easily become sources of conflict?
What is gained by offering a verdict before the legal process is complete?
Can one's public credit be lost due to impatience? How are one's credibility and witness affected? How is the church's unity affected?
I wonder, if one uses patience, restraint, and focus on our primary calling, is one indifferent to the injustices of our world?
When one is convinced that there is injustice, is there a biblical way to respond to injustice?
What if one's silence is not born of fear, but wisdom shaped by love for Christ and His church?
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for joining in conversation. I think you make very helpful points in your reply. In addition to what you say there I would add that the Heidelberg Catechism speaks directly to the question of drawing quick conclusions and speaking according to those hasty conclusions.
Q&A 112
Q. What is the aim of the ninth commandment?
A. That I never give false testimony against anyone,
twist no one’s words,
not gossip or slander,
nor join in condemning anyone
rashly or without a hearing.
Rather, in court and everywhere else,
I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind;
these are the very devices the devil uses,
and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath.
I should love the truth,
speak it candidly,
and openly acknowledge it.
And I should do what I can
to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (emphases added)
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.